From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vincent Veyron <vv(dot)lists(at)wanadoo(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! |
Date: | 2011-06-26 14:41:50 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTinXYPvEepGOu3pcto74PG19g=9hYg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
hello
2011/6/26 Vincent Veyron <vv(dot)lists(at)wanadoo(dot)fr>:
> Le dimanche 26 juin 2011 à 00:05 -0700, Darren Duncan a écrit :
>> Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>> Having real BOOLEAN is just one of the reasons I like Postgres the most.
>>
>
> Would you mind giving an example of where a boolean field would be a win
> over an integer one?
everywhere, where you require readability. For me a FALSE is more
readable than 1 <> 0 or TRUE instead 1 = 1
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> I'm asking this because I frequently wonder what is best for my use; I
> normally query postgres via Perl modules, which don't care about boolean
> (the driver converts t/f to 0/1), but I like to tune my fields properly.
>
sure, it depends on fact if outer environment knows or doesn't know a
boolean datatype.
>
> --
> Vincent Veyron
> http://marica.fr/
> Logiciel de gestion des sinistres et des contentieux pour le service juridique
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Gansevles | 2011-06-26 14:52:33 | Reusing cached prepared statement slow after 5 executions |
Previous Message | Rob Gansevles | 2011-06-26 14:40:27 | Cached prepared statement slow after using it 5 times |